So i bought a film slr a couple weeks ago in an attempt to learn photography. I sent my first roll of negatives to wallgreens and recieved the negatives, prints and a cd back. On both the prints and the cd it apears as if there are really faint, multi-colored lines on many of my photos. My question is if this lines are from my equiptment, tecnique, or wallgreen's developing or scanning?

So i bought a film slr a couple weeks ago in an attempt to learn photography. I sent my first roll of negatives to wallgreens and recieved the negatives, prints and a cd back. On both the prints and the cd it apears as if there are really faint, multi-colored lines on many of my photos. My question is if this lines are from my equiptment, tecnique, or wallgreen's developing or scanning?

You'll have to run another roll through to figure it out. you also need to process that roll someplace else.

If the lines are in the same spot, it's your camera. have it sent out and CLA. If it's not there it's Walgreens.

This is true, but i can't afford a digital all at once. I'm happy with film for now.

There are non-slr digitals that are more than point-and-shoot pocket cameras that can do everything a dSLR can do short of changing lenses. They're cheaper than any of the dSLRs and in about the same range as a new film SLR. Take a look at something like the Cannon IS 5 or G9. If you can go one generation back, it's even easier to save money. A Cannon IS 3 is sub $250.

So i bought a film slr a couple weeks ago in an attempt to learn photography.

Curious why you went with film and not a digital.

A lot of people would disagree with me on this, but learning on film is like learning on a stick, just gives you a better feel for photography since much of film photography translates into the digital world, but the reverse isn't true.

Any way, I think people that assume the casual shooter can shoot enough film to offset the cost of a DSLR, digital lenses, and all the hardware needed is foolish.

Example. Hard drive (big one is needed + 1-2 additional for backing up), high quality monitor, calibration software, powerful computer, possibly a portable computer or a portable harddrive with a flash reader (for longer shooting trips), lots of memory. And software. Yeah, I realize you can go cheap, buy a $500 computer, no calibration, not bother backing up, and use free software.

I'd say to get comfortably, into digital, you probably need to spend about $1000 + camera cost. So $1500-2000.

You can pick up some nice film cameras for as little as $10, with a CLA you are out $50-60 total. So that is $500 worth of film and processing before you even break even with digital.

Really it depends on volume you shoot in the end. I've got a 645 medium format system coming my way, my thinking is for landscapes at ISO 50 or 100, the 645 system for $500 is a way better investment than a Canon 1DsMIII or a Nikon D3X...$7500 is a lot of film and processing for roughly equivalent results!

It looks to me like Walgreens f$%ed your roll of film. It looks to me like there's a prominent diagonal scratch, which is probably on the negative....but since it's diagonal it's unlikely that it was caused by dirt or dust in your camera. It probably happened during processing. The other banding looks like a problem during printing. Most likely, Walgreens uses some digital scan & print system, so that's a problem with either their scanner or their print heads or both.

Best idea is to shoot another roll and take it to a new place for the developing and CD. I've had several instances where drug store lab/scan machines leave lines on the negative/print/scan that are clearly NOT caused by the camera. Have fun shooting the film. Picking your shot carefully and NOT being able to redo it will teach you many valuable things and hopefully you will get some good pictures, too. I was on a trip and needed a camera for a party, so I bought a not-so-old Canon Eos Rebel w/ a 35 to 80 zoom for $10 bucks at a tag sale and took fantastic pictures with it. Film still works very well. Disclosure: I mainly shoot now with a canon DSLR Rebel Xsi, w/ 18 to 200 lens. And have large hard drives full of images. It's OK to resist the marketing of the electronic devices. Have fun.

So i bought a film slr a couple weeks ago in an attempt to learn photography.

Curious why you went with film and not a digital.

A lot of people would disagree with me on this, but learning on film is like learning on a stick, just gives you a better feel for photography since much of film photography translates into the digital world, but the reverse isn't true.

Any way, I think people that assume the casual shooter can shoot enough film to offset the cost of a DSLR, digital lenses, and all the hardware needed is foolish.

Really it depends on volume you shoot in the end. I've got a 645 medium format system coming my way, my thinking is for landscapes at ISO 50 or 100, the 645 system for $500 is a way better investment than a Canon 1DsMIII or a Nikon D3X...$7500 is a lot of film and processing for roughly equivalent results!

I agree with the comments on learning with film.

Also people always keep telling me that digital is cheaper and better quality. But I shoot 6x7 and granted I probably could have paid for a Canon 5d or comparable system, however, those 6x7 slides are still better, camera is lighter, not so much fancy features to get in the way of the creativity of the shot, and still works great with gloves.

Welcome to the medium format club! You got a lab for processing near you? All the ones around here quit, they still do 35mm... I send it out now. One of these days I am going to get into doing it myself.

I disagree that film is better to learn with. Digital gives you instant feedback via the LCD and histogram, so you can adjust your settings and learn as you shoot, rather then waiting days to see what you got. Also, with digital, you have access to several tools that will give you lots of details on your photo, like active AF point, etc. Which in turn, allows you to trouble shoot what went wrong (or right) with a photo much easier then film. And, lastly, if you want the "shooting film effect" you can always set everything to manual, turn the LCD off, shoot with a small card that only hold 24/36 images and just print at a kiosk directly from the card.

I can see the cost being an issue though. But, you can find some pretty good deals on used dslr's out there, esp. 1st and 2nd gen bodies.

m_west_co wrote:

So i bought a film slr a couple weeks ago in an attempt to learn photography. I sent my first roll of negatives to wallgreens and recieved the negatives, prints and a cd back. On both the prints and the cd it apears as if there are really faint, multi-colored lines on many of my photos. My question is if this lines are from my equiptment, tecnique, or wallgreen's developing or scanning?